Can anything exist for an infinite time or outside of time?

Then it should also seem impossible for you that time itself could continue forever. After all, an existing object need only exist for an hour while time continues forward for that hour; if the object will never make it to infinity then neither will time itself.What this comes down to is a fundamental lack of understanding infinity, it is an argument from incredulity and thus largely worthless. In order to substantiate such a claim you would need to give a compelling reason why an object must cease existing after a finite period of time. Existence itself does not necessarily require time. A change in something that exists necessarily does in order to contain the two states of the subject, a "before" and "after" state at the very least. This is why I don't consider it reasonable to say that something outside of time created something as a finite action; it can either exist without creating or as creating, it cannot transition between the two states or even have two states.

You throw "impossible" out there like you know something. Apparently you don't think time continuing on infinitely is impossible, so why not objects? You still have not explained why exactly you think things *need* to stop existing at some point in time.It seems to me that you have simply decided that things cannot exist forever, and your evidence for this is claiming "thats impossible!" like it means something. If you think it is impossible you have to say why, especially because everything science shows points to matter/energy being conserved. That is to say, mass/energy is always conserved; you never get rid of it, you never get more of it.If it seems like I am being confrontational here, I really am trying to avoid it. I just find it annoying for someone to start a thread saying "Can this happen? I say no, because I feel strongly that I am right."

Sure, but that was exactly my point with time itself. Even without objects existing at all you would never reach "infinity" with the passage of time. So if you are incredulous about matter existing for eternity then you must similarly apply that to time itself.And it still comes down to an argument from ignorance. Just because you cannot quantify the duration does not mean that it must be finite. FYI, your ability to assign numbers and understand natural phenomenon has no bearing on their existence. (Don't worry, that seems to be a common problem around here.)

That is the general interpretation, that space and time are interconnected and exist regardless of the matter that may or may not exist within them. If objects themselves took their time with them, then wouldn't it be possible to put objects next to each other that have time passing at different rates?But this brings up even more questions; it isn't cognitively consistent that you could be associating time as being inextricably intertwined with objects themselves. You already stated that you have no problem believing that time can continue on forever, but that you think objects cannot exist for eternity. For that to be so time must be able to continue without objects, otherwise time would necessarily end whenever those objects failed to make it to eternity.You seem to be all over the map with this... Let me put it this way: Start counting up starting at one. Will you ever have to stop? No, you can continue for infinity. But you obviously will never reach infinity, so... does this mean that there are a finite amount of numbers? Does this mean that numbers cannot continue on forever?No. And it isn't that tough of a concept.

Not exactly; relativity is much more complicated, but it basically says that if something is moving in relation to another object then it would have a different passage of time. Objects that are unmoving in relation to each other would have the same frame of reference for time. Sure it does, if that object has always existed. It makes perfect sense. You cannot count it on your fingers, but it makes sense.Lets say time goes on infinitely, which you don't seem to have a problem with. Now lets say we want to count the number of years in "forever"; this would take an infinite amount of time, right? Well it is a good thing that we have an infinite amount of time!You can never count the number of years in forever because inherent in the definition of an infinite series is that it never ends. If you *could* ever reach then end then it wouldn't be infinite. So basically you have a problem with the concept of infinity. Or more precisely *counting* infinity, and for some reason if you cannot count it you think it cannot exist.

Certainly. Personally I tend to just copy and past quotes and associated screen names and avoid using them in my post. Get here from where exactly? If you set a point then you have just definite a finite period which would be possible to traverse. You can step that point back as many times as you like and every time have a traversable and finite period; indeed, in theory every possible point would be valid. There just would be an infinite number of them.You keep mixing up assumptions of finite frames of reference and concepts because you are still struggling to understand the concept of infinity. This is not surprising as humans are intimately familiar with finite concepts and nature provides little hands-on experience with infinity.However, my point went beyond that. Think of something you don't understand at all; this can be a hypothetical thing, or something in nature that you simply don't understand. Special and General Relativity for example, or quantum superposition and entanglement.Think very carefully about this one question: Does your lack of understanding, in and of itself, have any bearing on if the phenomenon exists or not?

It isn't important that it is moving toward a point, or away from some point. The importance is that it is moving. The concept of time going infinitely forward and infinitely back removes the issue of a start or finish from the equation; all we are left with is the movement. If you can point out a compelling reason why time must start and stop then it would also be compelling reasons for it not being infinite, otherwise it isn't in conflict. See, again with the proclamations. Why can we not have an infinite number of whole numbers for instance? Give me a reason, not just a claim of "Thats impossible!" without even the slightest hint of support. You are confusing yourself with semantics of your own devising. Indefinite means that there is no defined limit; infinity therefore would be indefinite, so your distinction of the two is rather difficult to understand. It is like saying "It does not go on forever, it just has no end." That is correct. So why does your central argument against the concept of infinity existing in reality seem to be "I can't count that high, so I cannot see it existing"?

Jeez, it is like debating a theist..."I don't think infinity can exist because if you try to count up to infinity you never reach an end, which of course is directly contrary to the definition of infinity itself, so I am basically saying that I don't like the concept of infinity because it is infinite. But this makes sense to me because I'm going to redefine infinity for no reason!Besides, nothing can exist forever because I have arbitrarily decided that time is finite so "forever" would be a quantifiable amount of time. This of course is proof of itself; if something goes on "forever", which is to mean without end, then by going on forever it *has reached* an end in "forever" (don't mind the blood from your nose, thats completely normal), and thus cannot have spanned infinity. So time must be finite based upon the irrefutable fact that circularity is the new black."As a rule of thumb, any proof that depends on ruling out the possibility through definition is probably not a compelling proof. Arguing against infinity due to it being endless, or arguing that time must be finite "because it is" is similarly unacceptable.